In Defense of Our Military

OK, if you have been reading consistently over the last week or so, especially in the Libertarian Act VIII thread, you know that one of the readers and frequent participants in our discussions, and he knows who he is, made some statements in a recent post that I found hateful, baseless, and fairly ignorant. But more than anything, I found them to be personally offensive. So I am going to answer his charges as best I can here, although he isn’t interested in any ideas that don’t fit within his personal belief system. But I give all readers the chance to state their own views below…

Let me preface this post with a few facts about me and my attitude around this blog. I am a veteran, and I am very proud of that. I gave three enlistments to the United States Army because I wanted to serve my country. I have a great life with great opportunities that people in other countries don’t have. And I felt as though I wanted to serve, as my father and grandfather did, because it is the right thing to do for me. Everyone can make that choice for themselves (unless Obama and Emanuel get their way). I feel I gave a lot. I did a tough job, certainly one that readers of this respondent’s persuasion despise. The job left its share of scars, both visible and not, but wasn’t without its rewards. I got a college education, invaluable leadership skills, and plenty of character out of the deal.

Second, I know the risk I take by putting my thoughts out there in a blog like this. I understand that not everyone feels the way that I do. But I saw this as an opportunity to foster discussions that would help us to begin the process of fixing this country. Plenty of you have argued with me around the issues and thoughts, and I value and enjoy your thoughts. Intelligent conversations between people of different stances helps us all to learn, re-evaluate our thoughts, and grow as people. Many well thought out comments from readers have changed my stance on several issues and I take a lot of pride in being able to discuss, analyze, and re-evaluate if I find something that seems to be a flaw in my position.

But I don’t attack anyone for believing differently than I do. I am not one to judge you personally simply because we share different opinions. I stated that the military and the government don’t do everything right or honorably or for the right reasons, but they certainly aren’t always evil either as the military does lots of good things as well. The response that I got floored me. I found myself right back in the sixties being spit on as a baby killer. The colored sections below are the actual quotes, blue for me and red for our military hater:

Military protection? Oh my. I am not protected by the Army in Iraq……

The military does far more than Iraq and Afghanistan.Yes, isn’t that so disappointing. They are screwing up more than these couple of countries – and have been doing it for 200 years.

Perhaps you are forgetting that because of that military you don’t live in Germany East now.They did not save me from East Germans, nor the Nazis, nor the Japanese, nor the Russians, nor the Spanish, nor the Filipinos, nor the Koreans, nor the Vietnamese, nor Chinese, the Apache… and dozens upon dozens more.

ignoring all of the good things that are provided.Like killing women and children. There is not one thing the US military provides that is ‘good’. They are professional killers and destroyers.

It must be a tough world to live in. Do you apply the same standards to your spouse?Yes. I don’t hang around people who believe they have a right to slaughter women and kids.

Quite an exchange, and it speaks volumes of the belief system and attitude of those who simply hate America at its core and live in a world where you are 100% within their belief system or 100% evil. There is no middle ground. I was obviously not pleased to hear these types of things stated and then restated in another post after I responded that I will not post here. You get the point of where his head is at on the subject.

Well I say bullshit. And while I respect this reader’s unique perspective and valued input on other subjects, this is a statement that shows not only a callous disrespect for our fighting men and women, but a point of view that takes everything for granted and, furthermore, shows either an incomplete knowledge of what the military has done or a mental disability that makes everything he doesn’t believe in inherently evil.

So a little bit of history and perspective from a soldier’s point of view. I understand that not everything the military has ever done is good. There are plenty of bad things, and we are all quite aware of them. But by and large the US military is a group of Americans that do a lot of good in the world, volunteering to serve their country and giving of themselves to something they believe in. They are regular people like everyone else and they choose to do a job that takes them away from their families and to places in the world they would rather not be. And for the record, only 30% of the soldiers in the United States military are combat arms, meaning fighting soldiers. The rest have jobs that have nothing to do with picking up a weapon and hurting anyone… Doctors, water treatment specialists, engineers, mechanics, cooks, nurses, and every other array of jobs you find outside of the military.

Yes we have been protected by the military on many occasions. World War I and II come to mind. The Germans were set on dominating the world, and had a pretty good head start on doing so until the US military joined the fight. But it isn’t just the specific conflicts that are to be noticed. BF points out that we have not been attacked on our soil. Thank the military for that. It certainly isn’t that no one wants to do so. The fact that it hasn’t happened is because every country out there who would like annex BF’s property for their new headquarters knows that doing so means defeating the US military. They can’t do that. So as far as I am concerned they protect me every day.

The US military returned a country being raped and pillaged, Kuwait, to its people. When genocide began in Bosnia, claiming 200,000 lives prior to the US military arrival, they put a stop to the ethnic cleansing. They have stood guard at the Korean border with 38,000 soldiers keeping the north from invading for nearly 50 years.

But step away from the combat for a bit and notice that U.S. forces are improving water supplies in Ecuador, flood barriers in Bangladesh, a medical clinic in Uganda and schools in Kyrgyzstan. Military experts train local residents to remove land mines in Nicaragua and Vietnam. By year-end, the U.S. military will have delivered 300,000 daily-rations packages overseas. Soldiers will have dug wells, built schools, and transported hospital equipment to villages from Croatia to Colombia. The Army will have trained officials from 11 African countries – Kenya, Ethiopia, Egypt, Eritrea, Djibouti, Seychelles, Burundi, Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania – to respond to disasters and deliver medical care.

After an earthquake devastated Pakistan, killing 87,000, the US military flew the aid missions to help. After the Sunami in Indonesia devastated that region, it was again the US military that stepped in to help. After Katrina in the US, yep the military again. In fact in just about every natural disaster that happens, it is the US military who immediately steps in to offer help in any way possible.

The bottom line is this: There is good and bad in everything. I understand the bad that the military and the government are capable of and that they have done in the past. But I also know that there are multitudes of good done by the military as well. I can see both sides because I live in the real world, where I don’t let my idealism get in the way of analyzing the facts.

If after reading this post, BF, you are of the same mentality that you were when you wrote those comments, then you are beyond hope. You live in a world of idealistic bullshit at that point. You cannot grasp reality if you stand behind those comments. And at that point I don’t know why you would want to continue reading and discussing points. Because that would show that you are not at all interested in making the world a better place, but instead are only interested in trying to convince everyone how much smarter you are than them.

I love my country, and it isn’t because I am too stupid to know better. I love it because of what I can do here that isn’t possible in most of the world. Is there bad here? Yes. Has our government gotten out of control and way overstepped their bounds? You bet. Hence why this blog was started in the first place.

Iranian Political Prisoners

But live under no illusion. If you espoused your hate for the country as a Chinese citizen, I promise you would be jailed or executed. If you voiced your distaste for “Big Brother” in Russia you would absolutely disappear in the middle of the night. And if you denounced Islam in Iran, you would be stoned to death. In this country you have the right to do those things. In most you don’t. And you can thank a veteran for making sure it stays that way. It will get you a lot further than the hate filled garbage you shared above.

Tibet Political Prisoner

You can choose to believe that the military has done nothing for you. You can choose to believe that in other countries you can live the way that you do here. But I have lived in others and have thus far been to over 50, and not one of them was better for protection of rights than this one. You can continue to hate America. I never wanted to take away your right to do so, and had thus far enjoyed the sparring that our different opinions caused. But in this area you stepped over the line and insulted a entire group of people, myself included, who have sacrificed in our belief that you should have those rights. America isn’t perfect. It certainly has a long way to go to get to where it should be. But it is better than the other alternatives out there.

So there is my somewhat biased take on this subject. I will now leave it to all of you. I ask that you be respectful, because as you all know, I expect that of everyone. And that includes in responding to BF personally. Obviously not everyone is willing to disagree in a respectful way, but if you stray too far I will be forced to remove the comment.

So is the US military nothing but baby killers, woman killers, and destroyers?

Like this:

Related

Comments

(Moving the discussion here as USWep has setup a specific blog on this topic)

Jon Smith Says:The military has protected you. It did so in WWII. It did so in WWI. It has protected our allies as recently as the first Gulf War. It protected you in the Cold War. Its very existence protects you, whether you wish to believe it or not.

There was no reason for the US to enter WW1. And because the US did, it heralded the end of Western Civilization.

Because of the US entry into the war, the Germans had to end its two front war – and sent Lenin to Russia to sow civil war and knock Russia out of the war.

Thanks directly to the US entry into WW1, the Soviet Union was born.

Germany transferred 500,000 troops adding to her strength from the Russian Front. Luderndorff was confident of success: “ We must strike at the earliest moment before the Americans can throw strong forces into the scale. We must beat the British.”

Its last gasp offensive was the Great Spring offensive of 1918 – The 1918 Offensive almost won the war for the Germans, but due to the ever increasing number of US troops, it faltered.

Though both sides lost in excess of 250,000 men – the Americans landed another 250,000 in the summer of 1918 – with another 250,000 on the way. The Germans losses were irreplaceable. Germany asked for armistice.

Without the US, the battle exhausted European nations may have made a different peace treaty – more like the Treaty of Westphalia – fairly equal on all the combatants with no dominance of any particular party.

But with the USA on their side – fresh and in great numbers – the Allies knew the Germans could not enter the agreements as an equal warring party.

And with the 14 points of Wilson and the Treaty of Versailles, which ripped apart Germany and Austria to create new countries of Poland and Yugoslavia, et ak, and in punishing Turkey, created the mess of the Middle East with new countries of Iraq, Kuwait, Arabia, Palestine, Syria and Jordon.

The Paris peace treaties, together with the accords of the Washington Naval Conference of 1921-1922, laid the foundations for the so-called Versailles-Washington system of international relations.

The remaking of the world map at these conferences gave birth to a number of critical conflict-prone international contradictions, which would become one of the causes of World War II and others all the way to today.

I also have no problem supporting it and its existence when appropriate.

I do.

The Founders warned most seriously at the folly of maintaining a standing army.

If it existed, it would be used – on adventures out side of the country, invading and conquering – and enforcing tyranny inside the country upon its own citizens.

The examples are readily seen – Iraq and Hurricane Katrina.

Also, even you admit the Revolutionary War was a good use of the military.

Actually, I didn’t say that at all.

I said “But (since 1783) not one of those deaths made this country safe”

The militia of the Revolution had a specific purpose – independence.

I did not say they were ‘good’. Like any military they slaughtered civilians.

I will move my latest comment over to here as well…I posted this a short time ago but we can continue the military conversation here. Prior to this post, BF posted to Jon Smith the following:

Jon,
Germany was unable to invade England because of its military fighting back with our productivity helping.
No, sir.
Historians usually place the beginning of the battle of Britain in mid-August 1940 and end it in May 1941, on the withdrawal of the bomber units in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the Campaign against the USSR on 22 June 1941.
The Lend-Lease Act was signed 11 March 1941, and it was not until the fall of 1941 when the first materials (other than the 50 destroyers used to cover conveys from Canada) started showing up.
This is long after the Germans gave up on invading Britain.
Once it had fallen, Germany would have beaten Africa
Africa was a ruse – the British had Africa under control long before the Americans entered the situation. By 5 November 1942, and the Battle of El-alamein, any effort in Africa was a diversion. It succeeded. The Allies delayed invasion of France disastrously by focusing on Italy. With that delay, the Russians almost captured all of Europe.
The war was over by Sept. 1941 – but no one knew that then.
On 14 September 1941, Ricard Sorge (A Russian spy in Japan) advised the Red Army that the Japanese were not going to attack the Soviet Union until:
1. Moscow was captured
2. the size of the Kwantung Army was three times that of the Soviet Union’s Far Eastern forces
3. a civil war had started in Siberia
“This information made possible the transfer of Soviet divisions from the Far East, although the presence of the Kwantung Army in Manchuria necessitated the Soviet Union’s keeping a large number of troops on the eastern borders.”
These forces came into major combat and halted the German advances in the winter, 1941 and at Stalingrad, and with Japanese committed to Indochina and the Pacific, the war against Germany was a foregone conclusion, it was a mere matter of time before the Russians overwhelmed them.
Once that had been done, its resources would have been more than sufficient to sail across and defeat us.
Unable to even supply its army on land, I argue that it would be impossible to do so across the Atlantic – without air cover, there is no way an invasion would even be contemplated.

Its primary obstacle was not geographical, it was the US Navy.
I do not agree – the primary obstacle would be a small air force – a hand full of aircraft would easily stop the most determined navy. The sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse by a mere 88 planes in 1941 demonstrated the end of sea-level naval power. Air craft and air superiority would be needed from then on.
..self-governed persons intent on self defense would have been even remotely effective is bordering on the retarded..
I guess the North Vietnamese were retarded too….as were any guerrilla resistance in history.
No major power has defeated an insurgency by sheer force of arms.
It is a complete dismissal of facts and reality.
Sir, you watch too many old war movies – do check your facts prior to posting in war history.

USWeapon Says:
December 22, 2008 at 12:08 am e
A lack of rational argument would be to say that because there are military entities that do what you term bad, that any other good that the entity does is irrelevant. That has been the point of the argument, which you seem unable to process. See I see that the group of people you refer to are capable of good things and bad things. You irrationally feel that because some parts do bad things that the parts that do good things simply don’t exist. And I am the one who is failing to have a rational, logical argument? It is statements such as your “good is irrelevant” that show the inability to consider anything other than your own points of view. Hence why I stated that you simply twist the words, accept only what fits your argument, and then claim the rest of us are too ignorant to deal with your superior intellect. It’s like a sick joke that you are the only one in the room laughing at.

USWeapon Says:
December 22, 2008 at 12:13 am e
And if you can’t find one good thing the military does, then I can only guess that your grasp of reading the english language escapes you every time you click on the “Defending the Military” post. Not “jingoisms”, just acts that are helping another country. I am unsure how building a school in Ecquador or teaching first aid for disaster response to eleven African countries is jingoism. But bravo on the big word that you didn’t think I would know.

USWeapon Says:
December 22, 2008 at 1:24 am e
And you should check your facts as well. Perhaps Jon watches too many movies, but you obviously read too many anti-US biased war history books. Which doesn’t necessarily surprise me. You can twist your history any way you like. So let me twist a few facts back to reality for you.

You say: Historians usually place the beginning of the battle of Britain in mid-August 1940 and end it in May 1941, on the withdrawal of the bomber units in preparation for Operation Barbarossa, the Campaign against the USSR on 22 June 1941.

Interesting that historians actually note quite frequently that the Germans re-doubled efforts on April 23, 1942, as the first air raids began against cathedral cities in Britain. The “battle of britain” was merely a preliminary air campaign meant to attempt to force Britain out of the war via air power and if this failed to do so, the air assault would be a suitable preparation for the inevitable land assault. The Germans had not even remotely given up on Britain, they had merely concluded that they would not be able to force Britain out of the war via an air campaign. The only reason that they didn’t invade Britain at that point was because they did not feel as though they had yet reached a point where their Navy could facilitate a crossing of the channel. But they figured that they would eventually have the ability to do so because they would have better production. But what you fail to take into account in any of your “points” are the following facts:

British war material production peaked in late 1942 or early 1943, depending on who you ask. At that point they were operating on credit and it is accepted that their production would have dropped significantly without US intervention. German war production actually peaked in 1944, even after over a year of US and British bombing. The Germans were getting stronger as the war went on while the allies got weaker, until the US joined the fight that is.

The Germans did, in fact have to re-deploy and deal with the Russian front for much of the remainder of the war. The Russians were largely supplied by US and British materials and weapons. The only reason that Britain was able to offer that support was because the US was simultaneously supplying Britain with newer and more effective materials. Both the US and Russian had used up most of their foreign reserves and could only resupply and do what they did because of the favorable credit terms and gifts from the United States.

So in short, had the US not entered the war, most historians agree that the German war machine would have gotten stronger with production continuing to grow as the allies got consistently weaker. Had that been the case, the outcome of the war was certainly looking like a different outcome. The entire scope of the war would be changed without the Russian front being such a burr in the side of Germany. Without US help, that Russian front would have collapsed and subsequently the African and European theaters would have been much different because all of those troops would have been re-deployed to them instead.

You mentioned that the Japanese were unable to join the German fight because they were occupied in indochina and the Pacific. That would be occupied dealing with the US military. You finally mention that the Germans, unable to supply their forces by land, could not have done so across the Atlantic. Go back through the scenario above. Take the US out of the equation, and Germany’s position is far different. They would have continued to get stronger and then crossing the Atlantic would have been possible.

As for Vietnam. The guerilla fighters there were losing the battle until the ARMYs of the north joined in. And regardless, Vietnam was lost because the war was not fought correctly. Check ANY history of the Vietnam war and you can see that plainly. We lost because we failed to fight the war on our terms, not because the guerillas were capable of beating the US military in an all out war.

There are tons of facts around the wars, especially WWII, and you are picking and choosing ones that support your position, as usual. And it is interesting that you don’t have a problem with any other country’s military, only your own.

Also, a note concerning air power. I agree, of course, with the power of the air over naval power. The attack of Japan on Pearl Harbor demonstrated the power of air over ships. However, if you will notice, the air power arrived on ships. Even now, we have navy pilots, as many of our war planes are not transcontinental, they are part of a naval deployment. Aircraft Carriers would have, of course, been a part of a naval invasion force. The existense of our navy preventing an incoming force, including air battles, is what I was referring to. A small collective of planes as you refer to would not stop an invasion force with naval based warplanes.

And I have to support USW on his reference to the reason for the success of the Vietnamese guerilla resistance. It and most other guerrilla forces have only been successful due to political failures on the part of the attacking countries. A true invasion by an evil regime bent on power and destruction would not be stopped by standard guerilla resistance. Maybe I watch too many old war movies, but you seem to have watched Red Dawn a little too often. A dozen kids with rifles aren’t going to stop a real military.

So, the US entry in WWI is to be blamed for a badly designed treaty? As if military action CREATES political policy? No, the bad treaty was due to power and revenge hungry rulers that took advantage of a situation. Do you really believe that, had the power been on the other side, that the Germans would have made a better decision? Can you base that on anything other than a personal theory comparing a totally different treaty?

And, the US entry into WWII, that created the Soviet union because the Germans released their loose canon operative onto Russia? As if some Bolshevik operative would not have found a target on their own? As if such an operative would not have found a way to gain power after the eventual demise of Hitler anyway, only then the power would have been greater? To say that things would have been different without US action is a truism, but to say that the USSR would not have existed, or that bad decisions would not have been made had the US simply stayed out of the power struggle is totally baseless. We did not CAUSE a bad decision to be made. Even if it could be argued that such a decision would not have been made, it cannot be argued that the final result would have been better, particularly considering the alternatives to our entry to the war. Would it really have been better to have all of Europe and Asia as a facist conglomerate instead of partly republic and partly communist? How can you make a call like that? What right do you have over the people on the other side of the world to say what fates would have been better for them?

I know you have a problem suporting the military when appropriate, that is painfully obvious. You have a problem deviating from your preset ideals, regardless of whether they make sense or not. It is a faith thing for you, rather than a logic thing. It becomes about belief, not truth. Dogmatism is a dangerous thing, as it releases us from the responsibility of thought, of questioning, and of learning.

You are correct that our military has been used in all of the ways described by the founders. Troops have been used to put down tax revolts. They were even used to attempt strike breaks in the early days of unions. Unions prevailed anyway, in spite of resistance by the government, proving that they did not require government help and their demands could be met in the free market without government laws being passed concerning employees and workers. Government meddling has been attrocious in business, both supporting it and fighting it. That is why I support government removal from business operations. Troops have been used for things outside of this country that have nothing to do with defense of this country. I will grant that in many examples, including those you mentioned. I will grant that the existence of a military is a temptation, and that the use of a military is a justification of its existence, therefore increasing the temptation even further. I would also say, however, that the founding fathers may have missed the point of having a standing army, they may have overlooked the advantages, particularly in light of modern military technology and tactics.

WWII had a specific purpose too, defense against tyranny. Both of ourselves and of our allies who requested our assistance. I would have preferred that we only sent volunteers rather than instituting a draft, but other than that, I see no problems with the purpose of that war. It was for our safety, your theories on the impossibility of invasion and conquer notwithstanding.

You claim an entity is evil based on evil actions that an entity of that type has taken. An entity can only be evil if the evil action is a part of that entity’s nature of makeup. If a military is used offensively, then perhaps those actions would be taken, but a military used for defense only would not necessarily perform those acts.

Now, in military tactics, bombing of an enemy nation or production center has historically been necessary. Precision strikes of the US modern war machine have reduced this, though not eliminated it. Some actions that have harmed innocent persons have been justified as actions that prevented further deaths by ending the war earlier, such as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in WWII. I can understand an argument against such actions in a war, describing them as unjustifiable regardless of circumstance. I may not agree, but, in point of fact, neither of us were there and thus are operating on what we have read or heard about the situation, not being involved in it or subject to the risks and effects involved.

So, going forward, if a military apparatus were used for defense only, and attacks were, with modern technology, limited to military targets and personnel only, then your definition of evil would be innapplicable to a military that performed in that manner. Thus, you have not proved that military is in and of itself evil, you have simply showed how certain actions are evil. USW has showed how certain actions are good. Neither side has addressed the nature of the entity of military itself. That is because a military has no resident evil or good, a military is, like government or money, a tool. It is no more moral or immoral than a screw driver. So can a military’s good actions justify its existence? Of course. Can it’s evil actions justify is removal, sure. Ideally, however, what would change would not be the military, but the people weilding it.

Well said Jon. I didn’t feel the need to address the nature of the entity of military itself, simply because I knew that doing so was a fruitless act with BF, who isn’t interested in considering an alternative to his point of view. But I agree with your commentary on the subject. The military is merely a group of people, hence there are good people and bad people. I felt in BF’s incoherent rambling stating that the military was nothing except murderers and destroyers, it was relevant to point out some of the good things that the military does.

I don’t think the military is evil. I do think that some of the people who have wielded its power were bad and consequently used the military for bad purposes. Your screwdriver analogy is a good one. If someone uses a screwdriver to stab someone, it doesn’t make screwdrivers a bad entity. It doesn’t undo their usefulness when I need to tighten a screw.

Ultimately, I would like to see the military used more in line with the Constitution, as a guardian of our nation rather than an aggressor. And I think this is more along the lines of government reform than elimination of the military, as BF espouses.

I concur with Jon, military entities are not evil, as you claim. They are capable of being used in evil acts. But by and large that is not the case. They just don’t write propaganda books about the good things the military gets used for. Every person out there who seems to feel the way you do, simply rattles off the historically violent history they have read about (and consequently does so by dramatically radicalizing actions and altering facts to fit the claim, as you did with WWII), but while doing so always seem to find a way to conveniently ignore all the other things that the military does. You started this argument with the premise that they do no good at all ever in any way, shape or form. When presented with facts to the contrary, you have swiftly changed course to any good doesn’t justify the existence of something capable of evil. All without ever admitting that the first statement was a fallacy.

Which leaves me with my original claim: You are not interested in making it a better world. You seem only interested in proving to everyone that you are somehow smarter than they are. That obviously isn’t going to work with me, so I submit that the best way forward is intelligent conversation based in facts rather than radical statements. It is only then that we can begin to find a way forward. I don’t pretend that I am right about everything because that would be a fallacy. And I feel that best sets me up to present, discuss, analyze, and find a way forward that is both feasible and in the best interest of all of us.

Perhaps a starting point would be an apology for making the statement that the military is nothing but baby killers and destroyers. I am neither, and I was in the military.

I apologize for duplicate posts – readability, however, is important – please delete the above. Thanks.

Jon Smith Says:

You claim an entity is evil based on evil actions that an entity of that type has taken.

Yes, a common way to identify evil is by the way it acts.

An entity can only be evil if the evil action is a part of that entity’s nature of makeup. If a military is used offensively, then perhaps those actions would be taken, but a military used for defense only would not necessarily perform those acts.

Therefore, I argue that this entity’s nature by observation and fact is evil.

1) The Revolutionary Army and the Militia were used defensively and to free a nation – let us call this, for the sake of argument, a ‘good’

2) This Militia slaughtered innocent men, women and children.

3) Therefore, even in defense and fighting for liberty, military forces act evil.

4) Therefore, military force is evil.

Now, in military tactics, bombing of an enemy nation or production center has historically been necessary.

Yet, proven to be completely ineffective.

Massive strategic bombing of Germany – and as USWep said- and I agree – Germany’s production continued to increase unabated.

It maybe a military tactic – but it is an act of evil to attack, harm and kill innocent people.

Precision strikes of the US modern war machine have reduced this, though not eliminated it. Some actions that have harmed innocent persons have been justified as actions that prevented further deaths by ending the war earlier, such as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings in WWII.

The use of these weapons did not end the war – their use was to scare the Russians, who sitting with 3 million men in the middle of Europe, was well positioned to take the rest of it.

Japan had been seeking peace since 1943 because of their inability to recover from their defeat at Midway. If you believe the West wanted to end the war sooner, all the West had to do was start talks of peace with Japan back then.

Further, the Japanese were desperately trying to surrender with terms in July 1945 – talking through the Russians, since the Western Allies spurned any and all communications with Japan

But even if all of this was not the case it is evil to kill innocent people. Period.

To simply to do so in an effort to save the lives of soldiers is not even close to being a moral argument. Crudely and simply, soldiers are paid to die for their country, innocent children are not.

Let me put it another way. al-Zarqawi’s killing resulted in the death of a woman and an innocent child. Would you put your wife and child in their place, and still drop that bomb?

So, why did they bomb? Because it ‘was too risky to send in ground forces to arrest him’ – rephrase: “it is just fine to slaughter anyone who gets in the way to ensure the safety of paid killers.”

There are many, many more ways to accomplish defensive goals than killing innocent people.

It may be tougher.

It may entail more risk.

It may take longer.

But so what? The other option is an act of pure evil.

I can understand an argument against such actions in a war, describing them as unjustifiable regardless of circumstance. I may not agree, but, in point of fact, neither of us were there and thus are operating on what we have read or heard about the situation, not being involved in it or subject to the risks and effects involved.

To save one’s life by killing an innocent person is an act of savagery, not civilization.

You are not allowed to kill children so to take their organs to transplant into your body to save your life. This is murder most heinous.

Therefore, if the military does the same thing, it is murder most heinous, too.

To justify such heinous murder is a pure act of evil.

The military, without exception, justifies this murder as ‘collateral damage’.

QED.

So, going forward, if a military apparatus were used for defense only, and attacks were, with modern technology, limited to military targets and personnel only, then your definition of evil would be inapplicable to a military that performed in that manner.

I would be comfortable to agree with that statement.

Thus, you have not proved that military is in and of itself evil, you have simply showed how certain actions are evil.

Since no military on earth or in history seems to have fulfill my requirement, by observational fact, I remain most comfortable with my label upon it – and that by demonstrating evil does in fact determine evil.

Since no military has been created has been able to not commit this evil, I argue that it is innate to the operation of the military. As you’ve agreed, it is a recognized and justified tactic. This can only be so if it is innate in the nature of the beast.

I would grant that it may not been ‘wanted’ – no more than a person wants to kill innocent life when defending his home from attackers.

But no person protecting his home can justify killing innocent people while defending his home.

The military does justify this killing.

By justifying such killing, other options that place far more onerous operation requirements on the military are ignored. This perpetuates the evil, requiring more justification, eliminating more difficult alternative and options…to the point where dropping a nuke on entire cities of innocent people becomes justified. What is so scary is that if you started from the last point and presented it at face value, the common man would revolt in horror – but because of the small, step, justifications – it becomes a nod, even by a common man.

That is how evil works.

Small, seemingly, innocuous exceptions to immutable truths – and before you know it, you look upon your actions and they are the exact opposite of your original principle and truth.

That is why it is “NO” to any killing of innocent persons – because one exception begins the permanent erosion of civilization.

That is why it is “NO” to theft, no matter how good the monies spent, or how many people raise their hand – because one exception begins the permanent erosion of civilization.

That why freedom is immutable – because any exception begins the permanent erosion into slavery.

That is because a military has no resident evil or good, a military is, like government or money, a tool.

I agree it is a tool.

I do not agree it is like a screw driver.

These tools are human beings – with brains and intellect – and most importantly, choice. A screw driver does not have any of this.

For a human being to justify such evil by merely changing his own self-view to be nothing but a brainless tool, in my opinion, one of the greatest evils upon humanity.

It is so evil because not only does this person commit such justified horror, but more evil because it invalidates, denies, and suppresses the very thing that separates us from animals – intellect and choice.

A real hero is a person, who facing a decision of certain death or saving his life by allowing the killing of innocents – chooses civilization.

I take your point on the killing of innocent people. I also take your point that the military is not a screwdriver, it is not a peice of hardware. It is a group of people.

In your reference to the Gnadenhutten massacre, it is clear that some people in the military entity chose and supported murderous acts. Some opposed it. This indicates that you are right about choice, but it further indicates that the military as a whole was not the one that perpetrated evil. It was the actions of some soldiers who justified it to themselves. It was indeed an evil act, but it was very blatantly the act of individuals and small groups, not the Continental Army. It would be like outlawing charities because some of them and/or some of their members have perpetrated fraud. The same could apply to business. Business has engaged in evil, and it is made up of people with individual decisions and choices. Is business evil?

I do not argue against your recitation of historical events, simply how you apply those facts against the military or the concept of a military. The form of your logic would make many other entities evil as well, at least by your definition, and that includes the free market itself. The market does not care about women and children and the innocent. It does not care that people lose their jobs in competition and some starve. It is survival of the fittest. I do not imply that the military is the same thing, it is not a survival of the fittest per se. I am simply saying that the market and entities like business or the military or religion are generally amoral. There is not good or evil about them, they are what they are made of, they are good or evil based upon the decisions of the individuals in them. The same applies to governments. The same also applies to self-government. There would be those in a truly self-governed society that did not follow the rules of that society. Those persons would have to be dealt with.

I respect your attitude of unwavering freedom and total freedom from evil. I am not sure that I can wrap my head around perfection in an imperfect world. Maybe I have spent too much time being practical. I like your concept in theory, I just fail to see how it would possibly function in a society of imperfect people.

In your lengthy post above, you point out that observation of the facts identifies the entire entity as evil. However, I notice that you only use facts that support your position, completely ignoring any of the actions that were pointed out in the main post. That is where I think your arguments lose some rationality. You only see what you want to see and simply ignore anything that isn’t in line with your point. Since the military is also responsible for all of the good things I posted above, I could simply list them and say “there, the military, by its actions, is good and righteous.” However that would make the mistake of ignoring the items that you posted. I refuse to cloud my vision by ignoring facts, and therefore I get to see things from all sides. If you want to be credible, you should follow that lead. In my opinion, the military has the ability to be evil, and has shown through actions that it can be. It also has the ability to do good, and has shown through actions that it can. See…. two sides. When you become idealistic and show that you cannot see any of the things on the other side as true, you absolutely lose credibility.

No sir, soldiers are absolutely not paid to die for their country. We are paid to make sure the guy on the other side dies for his. And not paid well I might add. E-5 and below live below the poverty line.

I get your point about innocent people dying. I agree and wish this weren’t the case. But what is the alternative? The US has led the way in the creation of smarter weaponry in order to limit civilian casualties. And I applaud that effort. Perhaps one day we will get to the point where we can pinpoint an evil person and kill him alone while the people in the room with him are untouched. But we aren’t there yet.

You bring up the bombing that resulted in Al Z’s death. You again have a purposeful recall of the facts surrounding the bombing. The decision to use a bomb rather than to storm into the house and capture him was not made for the reasons that you claim. Your version sounds great for the support of your position. But the reality is that the timeline between confirming that someone is where we think they are is drastically short before that intel is no longer going to help. The military jet bombed that site 7 minutes after the intel was confirmed. Putting together a team, traveling to the site, and taking that house down would have taken several hours. By then he would have been gone.

You are correct in abhorring the death of the child. I don’t like it much either. As for the wife, she was an active terrorist as well. There is the key fact for me. The terrorist networks are using women as suicide bombers. And those women are fair game. The second a woman picks up a weapon and joins the fight, she is just another combatant that should be eliminated. I know you don’t like that sentiment, but it is the way of combat. So the bombing killed a child, which is horrible. But it also killed several terrorists. And while I know you will twist this next statement to try to make it sound as though I think it is OK to kill children, I will make it anyway. Al Z was responsible for personally beheading at least two American civilians on film. He orchestrated the kidnapping and murder of almost two dozen civilians and the suicide bombing of 3 hotels in Jordan, killing 60 people in those attacks. He was a leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq and responsible for thousands of deaths. The military attempted to capture and kill him for years prior to this. The opportunity to get him appeared and they took it. It is horrible that a child died in the process, but baffling that you would sacrifice the life of thousands of other innocent people who he would have later killed in order to save the life of one.

It isn’t evil, it is a choice. War is not pretty and unfortunately it isn’t clean. I pray that perhaps one day we can eliminate war from the planet. But right now that is impossible. To fight a war on your terms is a path to failure. To not fight it at all is just as much a failure. Al Qaeda isn’t coming after us because we meddled. They are coming after anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe. They have completed terrorist bombings in over 60 countries to date.

Jon Smith Says:
In your reference to the Gnadenhutten massacre, it is clear that some people in the military entity chose and supported murderous acts. Some opposed it. This indicates that you are right about choice, but it further indicates that the military as a whole was not the one that perpetrated evil. …. not the Continental Army ….

I apologize for relying on Wikipedia, but it is a quick reference. I point to my bolded text;

Some militiamen opposed this action, and withdrew from the area . Although many white Americans were outraged by the Gnadenhutten massacre, many frontiersmen, embittered by a cruel war unlike anything in the East, voiced support for the militia’s actions. Although there was some talk of bringing the killers to justice, no criminal charges were filed

The Delawares at war with the Americans sought revenge for Gnadenhütten. When General George Washington heard about the massacre, he ordered that no American soldier allow himself to be taken alive; .

The Army, and its General, did nothing – the General, in fact, instead of taking a firm and harsh hand to the murderers, put to risk every other American soldier to die badly – by that act, gave this heinous crime the grace of the Army and of the General.

Though some militiamen withdrew, this does not remove their culpability to the crime – they could have stopped it, knowing it was murder. By leaving, they did not participate – by not intervening, they gave grant to it.

In contrast, I offer this American:Hugh Thompson, American Hero

Hugh Thompson recently died. He was the son of an electrical
worker and a military man. His father was in the army and
served in the navel reserve for thirty years. Thompson’s
parents taught him to stand up for other people. ….

… He became a helicopter
pilot and was, in 1967, sent to Vietnam….

On March 16, 1968, Thompson was sent to cover American
troops advancing on the village of Mi Lai. He saw no hostile
fire from the ground so he went back to the base to refuel.
While he was at the base the infamous massacre at Mi Lai
began. Many of the men would not follow the orders of
Lt.Calley.

“We started noticing all those bodies everywhere,” said
Thompson. “Your thinking. What happened here? This little
thing in your mind is saying what happened, but you don’t
want to believe it because it looks bad….I can remember
thinking, Dammit, isn’t this what the Nazi’s did.” Thompson
saw a young girl rolling along the ground, obviously in
great pain, and called for help. During this time a soldier
walked up to the girl and executed her. Lt. Calley was
goading his men to open fire. He had driven the villagers
into a ditch, and with the help of Paul Meadlo, they began
to slaughtering the Vietnamese. Blood and body parts flew
everywhere and when it was all over fifty Vietnamese men,
woman and children lay dead.

Thompson: What’s going on here, Lieutenant?
Calley: This is my business.
Thompson: What is this? Who are these people?
Calley: Just following orders.
Thompson: Orders? Whose orders?
Calley: Just following…
Thompson: But, these are human beings, unarmed civilians, sir.
Calley: Look Thompson, this is my show. I’m in charge here. It ain’t your concern.
Thompson: Yeah, great job.
Calley: You better get back in that chopper and mind your own business.
Thompson: You ain’t heard the last of this!

Thompson knew it was time to act. He flew down and gathered
some help from some of the soldiers on the ground. They
sought to protect another group of people who had been
thrown into a ditch and awaited a similar fate. Thompson
had seen enough, and when a group of American soldiers
approached an elderly couple and a small child fearfully
hiding from the crazed Americans, Thompson’s humanity told
him not to let this madness continue. “I was going to save
them. I set the aircraft down this time between the
civilians and the Americans and told my people. If they
open up, you open up.” The soldiers who had followed
Calley’s orders felt a sigh of relief. They would not be
forced to kill anymore.

And the military’s response? Calley would serve only three and a half years of house arrest.

Thompson quickly received the Distinguished Flying Cross for his actions at My Lai. The citation for the award fabricated events and praised Thompson for taking to a hospital a Vietnamese child “caught in intense crossfire” and said that his “sound judgment had greatly enhanced Vietnamese-American relations in the operational area.” Thompson threw the citation away.

Exactly thirty years after the massacre, Thompson, Andreotta, and Colburn were awarded the Soldier’s Medal (Andreotta posthumously), the United States Army’s highest award for bravery not involving direct contact with the enemy. “It was the ability to do the right thing even at the risk of their personal safety that guided these soldiers to do what they did,” then-Major General Michael Ackerman said at the 1998 ceremony.

Yes, after the war – years after war, so not to ‘infect’ the current mood of battle – they get a medal.

And still today, the military continues to mow down civilians en masse.

It would be like outlawing charities because some of them and/or some of their members have perpetrated fraud.

First, I do recognize that some times, the military will arrest a soldier for committing murder of civilians. I will not comment any further, however, on the horrific white wash most of these heinous atrocities have been dealt with in the military courts (though I am of the mood to continue to use these massive number of examples to further my argument of evil in action)

Second, the militaries are each individual entities. US Army is different than the Ethiopian Army, etc.

Charities are each individual entities. Red Cross is different than the United Way.

Individuals found perpetrating fraud in Charities are arrested, charged and dealt with by law. The Charity typically co-operates with prosecution, and works very hard to ensure such abuse does not happen again, while working equally hard repairing their reputation.

Contrast:
Soldiers found slaughtering civilians en mass are rarely prosecuted and often get medals. The military justifies most of this slaughter as ‘collateral damage’. The military does not change its operational tactics to prevent these killings – given they still occur (though I will give you that sometimes they try to minimize the killings – but that is a far, far, cry from stopping it).

Armies are not destroyed or disbanded by these civilian killings (one might suggest that the Wermarcht of the Third Reich was disbanded over much of this – I’ll stretch and give that one, but it is an incredibly rare, singular, event and as such not one that determines a trend or reverses one.)

Where very rarely do business and charities operate fraudulently, and very rarely do people in these organizations act fraudulently, the military, with nearly no exception of case (well, no exception at all within my research, but over 7,000 years of war, maybe, just maybe it might have happened once, so I’ll give the slight modifier), every one of them have committed such killing.

I believe you would grant my statement that collateral damage killing of innocent civilians is a common occurrence.

I, therefore, submit that the attempt of equivalence as you’ve presented is without validity.

The market does not care about women and children and the innocent. It does not care that people lose their jobs in competition and some starve.

This is not a matter of caring, or not – or even ‘moral’ or not.

It is matter of life and death.

The right to Life, and Liberty, without that nothing else matters.

There is a massive difference between the sting of a dollar bill across your back and the rip of bullets.

I can steal your wallet, your car, even your house, even your wife. It would be entirely possible for you to get these things all back or replace them or make do.

I can steal your life. I need not say anything more.

I would therefore suggest that it is of the greatest imperative of the people to put the highest condemnation upon those that steal lives.

Currently, if it is encapsulated within the military or government, the tendency is to honor it.

The same also applies to self-government. There would be those in a truly self-governed society that did not follow the rules of that society. Those persons would have to be dealt with.

Indeed, it would be.

The fundamental difference between freedom and slavery – self-government and overt government; is attitude and principle.
Violent action is only justified as a response to an initiation of violence.

There is no right to punish (thus, no right to revenge) – there is a right to justice (that is, “to make whole again”).

Of course, this would change our current perception of crime and justice. But this has changed before, so it is very possible it can change again.

Obviously this is an entire other blog/post topic.

I like your concept in theory, I just fail to see how it would possibly function in a society of imperfect people.

I believe it works best with imperfect people.

Right now, the theory is “man is imperfect and prone to sin, therefore from this very same pool of imperfect and sinful people, let’s find a few of them and give them all the power to tell us right from wrong” – funny, isn’t it.

Or how about this … the theory is “man is imperfect and prone to sin, therefore let’s disperse the power over the largest area possible to prevent its concentration so to prevent tyranny.”

So I support national government over global government,
I support state government over national government,
I support civic government over state government,
I support community groups over civic government,
I support individual’s rights over community groups.

It doesn’t have to be ‘perfect’ – but it is the optimum.

There will still be world hunger, war, crime, poverty, disease, abuse, the sick, the old, bad fathers, single mothers, etc.

In your lengthy post above, you point out that observation of the facts identifies the entire entity as evil. However, I notice that you only use facts that support your position, completely ignoring any of the actions that were pointed out in the main post.

I have already presented this argument:

No matter how good evil acts, it cannot justify the evil it does.

I doubt you use your argument to defend John Wayne Gacy.
He liked children and made them laugh most of the time, therefore, he wasn’t a bad guy, right?

Evil is what evil does.

A spoon full of sewage…blah blah.

Since the military is also responsible for all of the good things I posted above, I could simply list them and say “there, the military, by its actions, is good and righteous.”

First, it is not that I don’t recognize heroics that individuals do – regardless whether they are in the military or not.

And that’s my point.

It is the MILITARY that is evil. Many people in the military are not. I may believe they are naive, misguided, ignorant of what they are fighting, killing and dying for, but stupidity or ignorance (as long as this stupidity/ignorance is not willful) does not evil make.

But the MILITARY is evil. It is one of the primary sources of evil in the world. It knows no limits or bounds in exercising its evil, including obliterating most of the world’s population if it so deems it necessary.

Further, much of the good the military does is by replacing what civilians operations could do, peacefully – but don’t because the military is in the way. The military can use force and violence to acquire what it wants – can step on any one’s rights to fulfill its ‘mandate’ – use its hired muscle to prevent anyone from interfering or allow it to interfere in anyone’s else operation.

True, it may make civilian operations more difficult if they couldn’t use power and violence to force its way; but not impossible.

.

I get your point about innocent people dying. I agree and wish this weren’t the case. But what is the alternative?

To be glib, how about not kill them?

The US has led the way in the creation of smarter weaponry in order to limit civilian casualties. And I applaud that effort. Perhaps one day we will get to the point where we can pinpoint an evil person and kill him alone while the people in the room with him are untouched. But we aren’t there yet.

But, yes we are.

You look only one direction in hope (technology) – pointless hope, because the attitude will not change.

There is no need to kill civilians today.

There are plenty of other options – inconvenient in many ways, I’m sure – but they exist nonetheless.

It is merely a matter of choice.

By then he would have been gone.

And my response would be “too bad”.

That is simply not an excuse to kill innocent people.

So keep a team “hot” – so what if it makes it difficult for the military – I repeat that is their job

But as long as there exists the opinion that these killings can be swept aside, the entity that executes both the crime and the justification remains evil.

You are correct in abhorring the death of the child. I don’t like it much either. As for the wife, she was an active terrorist as well.

I have no information that confirms your statement.

Regardless, the question still stands.

Would you put your wife and child there and drop the bomb? Why or why not?

Yep, he was a bad guy.
Sorry that doesn’t make the act of killing innocent people any less evil.

It isn’t evil, it is a choice.

That is exactly what makes it evil.

Evil by ignorance or stupidity cannot exist (unless such ignorance is willful)

Evil is – always – a choice.

Al Qaeda isn’t coming after us because we meddled.

The CIA itself contradicts you.

Blowback of US meddling is the primary cause of attacks on US citizens worldwide.

Description
Founded in the 1980s, Al Qaida is the central component of a network of Sunni extremist groups. It functions as an umbrella organization with branches in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. Al Qaida is committed to overthrowing secular governments in Islamic countries and using force to eliminate all Western influences in these countries. Al Qaida activities include, but are not limited to, suicide attacks, simultaneous bombings, kidnappings, and hijackings. The Al Qaida network has been directly or indirectly associated with the 1998 bombings of two United States embassies, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. It was directly involved in the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks of September 11, 2001.

I’m not sure of your source for “60 countries”, however, this the summary I could find.

As I said, Sweden isn’t having bombs blowing up…..

Regardless, they are criminals. If they were dealt with as criminals, the world would not be slipping over the edge of an abyss today.

And regardless, even if they, themselves, were the epitome of evil on earth.

First I will deal with your reply to me, then to the reply to Jon Smith.

No I wouldn’t say that about Gacy. But he is a man. Stick to comparing apples to apples here. The military is full of individuals. So I can say that there are individuals in the military that act bad and other individuals that act good. You are an anarchist by nature, certainly by philosophy. If some anarchists in California blow up a church, is it fair to say that anarchists are all killers? I think you are a venture capitalist by trade (just a guess but for the sake of argument the answer is yes). So a couple of venture capitalists blow up a school and it would be OK to say all venture capitalists are murderers?

What interests me the most is that someone who loves to boil things down to the individual in theory completely fails to do so in practice analyzing anything you choose to dislike. It is easier to point out the bad things and say the big bad military is nothing but evil. I suggest you do so simply because to judge things more accurately would destroy everything about your argument. The only way your argument holds any water at all is to assume that all military is responsible for the bad acts you love to write about. How could you possibly find good in a former helicopter pilot for the military? He was part of that military that you claim is nothing but baby killers and murderers? See how you have already made my point for me? I appreciate that, by the way. The military is a collection of individuals, some bad, 10% of any group on earth is bad and the military is no different. But you choose to only see that bad 10% and then apply their standards of conduct to the other 90% as well. I know that you are not going to change your mind on this and that is OK. I am content pointing it out to all the other readers so that they can see your arguments for what they are.

And you can change course a bit and say it isn’t the people that are evil but the military itself. I like that you have come at least part way here. But the “military” is not a thing that can be evil or not evil. It is merely a collection of individuals. So again, there are evil people in the military. There are evil people in every group. But to hold the masses accountable for the few in terms of evil actions sure is a flawed tactic. And stop using the sewage thing…. sewage mixes with the water and contaminates the whole glass. That doesn’t apply to people in the same way. One person can infect a group, but it isn’t always, or even usually, so. I don’t know which country’s military you served, but the soldiers I served with had morals and principles and had I given them an order to kill innocent people, they would have told me to go to hell.

“to be glib, how about not kill them” …. and let Al Z continue on to kill hundreds of other innocents. Brilliant plan. Sacrifice the life of one person for the deaths of hundreds. And the military is evil? You say that never killing an innocent is an answer, and then say that someone who stands by and does nothing is just as guilty as the person who committed the act. So the military would be evil in either situation. Kill the child, they are evil for killing an innocent child. Don’t do the bombing run and the military is evil for standing by and allowing Al Z to kill hundreds of innocent people later. If he is gone so what? Then you justify his killing of 100 more because they didn’t take care of him when the opportunity presented itself. It is easy to make an argument when you simply find a way to make any choice possible a wrong one, which is how your arguments seem to be working.

Interesting that you, of all people, would rely on the CIA of the US government as the source of proof for your position. However, I will leave that one alone. As a former operative with extensive knowledge of Al Qaeda, both from personal experience and years of intelligence briefings, allow me to provide you with the facts that your research on Wikipedia failed to provide:

Al Qaeda was formed in the 80’s so that part is correct. They primarily began in Saudi Arabia and were composed of former Mujahideen returning from the Afghanistan/Russia conflict. Their cause began because they were quite unhappy with the west and its influence……. on their children. In an effort to educate their future generations they sent their children to western universities. These children returned home westernized and not as rooted in the Islamic teachings. This enraged the Islamic leadership and thus the campaign against other countries isn’t about the government meddling in their affairs so much as it was about the Western culture possibly loosening the religious leaders grasp on the next generation. Al Qaeda is mostly interested in the principle that any person not adhering to their faith is targeted for death righteously. An interesting note is that a majority of the attacks against civilians have occurred in muslim countries. The target are often muslims of another sect, such as the shia. Al Qaeda is responsible for over 12,000 deaths in the last 5 years.

Most scholars feel as though the group would not have existed if not for the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the organization would not have existed. His writings pointed out that the absence of sharia law was a threat to islam. His writings influenced a generation to believe that anyone who didn’t believe what they believed should be killed. The US is a major target, because we have so much influence on the world.

1) No criminal charges were filed because of a corrupted government. Military oversight is often lacking when it comes to punishment of evil acts by its soldiers. This issue is not, however, exclusive to the military. Orders were given to soldiers to not be taken alive because Washington knew the fate of any American soldier if captured after such an act was committed. He knew that the Native tribe would not distinguish between those who would murder them and those who would not. The fate of those who were unable to follow those orders shows he was right.

Wealthy people have committed evil acts and gotten away with it as well. Star athletes have gotten off due to being able to afford to manipulate the system. This is not showing that stardom or wealth is evil, only that fame and fortune can be used to get away with evil. Military personnel using “combat situations” to get away with evil are no better or worse, but your willingness to label the military as evil is inconsistent unless you are also labelling wealth and fame as evil.

I know that you think the soldiers who left could have stopped the massacre, and you may be right, or you may not. It may be that they were unwilling to die for the defense of the native tribe. They have the right to their own life, yes? They have no responsibility to their fellow man by your logic, true?

You say a right to life is the key. Perhaps that is so, but taking livelihood or placing someone in a position where they are not to receive medical treatment without the means to pay for it could be considered a violation of the right to life. In a self-governed society, there would be no requirement for an emergency room to accept a dying patient for any reason, and certainly no requirement to accept them if they had no insurance. If you are burning alive in your house but you have chosen not to pay taxes for or accept the service of fire and rescue, and you have not found a government alternative or have found an incompetent and therefore affordable alternative, then you will simply die there while others that could have helped refuse because they need not be involved, based on your philosophy. Would this not be a violation of the right to life? Is that not as bad as bullets? Could not the right to life be skewed to mean that one has the right to demand life from others?

Now, I realize that even the above argument is different than having one’s life stolen. Having it taken by force when it was not necessarily a choice of your own is indeed different. I do not have a problem with murder of the innocent being held at the highest level of reproach and punishment. Altho, you don’t believe in punishment, which puzzles me.

If punishment is not permitted, then why would you have an issue with no charges being filed on the perpetrators of the Gnadenhutten massacre? Filing charges or hanging them or pretty much anything else would not have restored anything to the victims. More in a moment.

The no punishment thing is still throwing me. If one cannot be punished, then how can justice be served for murder at all? No restitution can ever be made, the victim cannot be made whole.

More importantly, what if the murderer is likely, especially in absence of punishment, to kill again? In Al Z’s case, what if there was not a better opportunity to stop him? Too bad? Too bad for the innocents he was killing? So an evil person can use a child as a sheild and kill hundreds of other children and you do nothing because you cannot kill him without killing the child? There is not always another alternative, or at least not a better one. Sometimes life really does face you with a lesser of evils kind of choice, and you have to have the courage to make that choice. Unless, of course, you care only for yourself, in which case, as I mentioned before, you cannot criticize the soldiers who left but did not stop a massacre.

Jon Smith Says: The no punishment thing is still throwing me. If one cannot be punished, then how can justice be served for murder at all? No restitution can ever be made, the victim cannot be made whole.

Remember about why I married my wife? It was on this particular discussion that she made a powerful eye-opener for me – for Me! MR. Freedom!

We were talking about capital punishment – with me an advocate. I had an army worth of reasons and justifications – protection of innocent, et al.

She simply said “But, you’ve always said you can only use violence to resist an initiation of violence – and when there is no violence, you can’t continue yours either. How is the guy acting violent behind bars to justify you the right to kill him?”

So what happened – why was I confused? Because our justice, as it is, is so screwed up – our philosophical ‘compensation’ to achieve a sort of justice is equally all screwed up.

So, start from immutable principles and work through it. Just remember, you are not allowed to contradict your immutable principles for any reason – None. Zero. Never. Trust me, you will be forced to come up with many incredibly insightful answers.

They might be challenging – sometimes it is easier to simply kill the people you don’t like – but you’re not allowed to do that – so you have to take, perhaps, a more difficult, challenging, inventive, insightful, thoughtful and different route to overcome the challenge. But doing it that way, you know you did it ‘right’.

As far a murder, do you believe locking him up forever creates a restitution? Or killing him?

Well of course not, a life lost cannot be reclaimed. So how can it be restored by another?

Some random thoughts, all debatable and arguable:
– Perhaps he become a sort of slave to the survivors. Since they are deprived of, say, income that person may have produced, the survivors lay claim against the killer’s income. For how long? As long as the survivors feel it’s necessary. When they are ready to forgive, he is relieved of the duty.
– Justice. Justice and forgiveness go hand in hand. Today, forgiveness has no place – the state decides it, not the victim. Many examples of criminal’s remorse and victims forgiveness are defeated by the callous state.

This is a book’s worth of discussion – and by no means are my thoughts definitive or fully flushed out.

But the core point is, whatever the answer, it must never contradict the core principles of human rights. If, at any point, it does you must throw it away and start again.

Remember, the universe provides an infinite number of answers to any problem. You can only pick one of them. Choosing the ‘right’ one is the real trick.

More importantly, what if the murderer is likely, especially in absence of punishment, to kill again? In Al Z’s case, what if there was not a better opportunity to stop him? Too bad? Too bad for the innocents he was killing?

I can give you a direct answer – “yes”.

I know that won’t help you one bit, because you’ll want to now also know “well, what can be done then?”

To answer that question, we need to start from the very beginning.

This site, http://www.tolfa.us, does that – it sets up the mind-set for you to start answering these very difficult questions.

But, to start, it isn’t ‘too bad for the innocents he was killing’. They are not necessarily helpless, either. However, in today’s utter muddle, they are confused.
– They are not allowed to defend themselves – the US Military actively disarms them.
– They have to rely on the US Military, but the US Military sees them, first, as enemies, so aren’t much in the mood to ACTIVELY defend them, since the US Military spends nearly all of its time actively defending itself from them.
– The only time the military does anything is from a REACTIVE mindset – and in this mindset, actively kills a lot of innocent people too.
Thus, the people are torn between hating Al Qaeda and hating the US.

However, if the US military never killed innocent people and acted with full respect toward free people, the people would easily and instantly recognize the ‘good guy’ from the ‘bad guy’. Al-Z would have been instantly turned over to the ‘good guy’. He would have no place to hide.

…is why Al-Z and others operate so effectively against the US.
As long as the Military believes it can do whatever abuse it wants against whomever it wishes to accomplish whatever goal it desires, it cannot be anything but evil. It is therefore of no surprise that people attack it relentlessly.

So an evil person can use a child as a shield and kill hundreds of other children and you do nothing because you cannot kill him without killing the child?

Correct.

He can’t hide there forever.

As long as the ‘good guy’ acts like the ‘bad guy’, he’s a ‘bad guy’ too.

Just think of the ol’ movie westerns. Good guys wear white (and black hats  ). They don’t shoot people in the back. They don’t open fire when the bad guy hides behind women and children. They wait it out, the figure it out, they do the hard thing – and most of the time, they win.

Why? Because it is easy to kill and destroy. It takes years to build a building, and minutes to destroy it. It takes years to grow to adulthood and a second to die.

Creation is totally opposite of the atrophy of the universe. To live, to build, to create pushes the universe backwards. Destruction is easy, because the universe makes it so.

So, with all of this against life and good – life and good is winning. We have huge cities, as an example – built even though it is so easy to destroy it.

Because life and good is, in the end, stronger than evil. The good guy doesn’t need to use bad guy tactics because he can win anyway using good guy tactics. He is the good guy because he works harder, is tougher, is stronger and better than the bad guy. The bad guy can’t do anything else because he is weaker – and thus, needs to use every evil possible to gain advantage.
But the moment the good guy ‘cheats’, the town is against him, right? “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”

One time, and its over for the good guy. One spoon of sewage…..
If, in fact, the US military went into Iraq as real liberators – dedicated themselves to protecting the people at all costs – acted like heroes and not occupiers – the ‘bad guys’ would have been gone long ago – they would have no place to hide.

But the first American boot on the back of a father pinned to the floor of his own house, while that soldier is pointing his weapon, finger on the trigger, at the father’s children cowering around their mother… the game was lost.

There is not always another alternative, or at least not a better one.

There are always alternatives – if you can’t see it, you simply haven’t look hard enough yet. The universe provides an infinite number of answers to every problem. The first easy ones aren’t necessarily the ‘right’ one.

Not that a mere movie is real life, but it offers a philosophical example of what I mean.

“The Peacemakers” with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman – the few final scenes have them hunting the nuclear terrorist/diplomat (how appropriate  ). Snipers are on the roof – and the terrorist is spotted!

The move takes us inside the panicked head of a special forces sniper on a New York rooftop being ordered to fire at the man with the bomb when suddenly a little girl riding on her father’s shoulders gets is in the way. Will he take the shot?

Clooney’s character yells “Shoot him! Shoot him!” Kidman yells “Shoot him! Shoot him!” The sniper looks through the scope and sees a little girl blocking the shot. He calls out “Target blocked! It’s a little girl….” He is interrupted by Clooney, “Shoot! Shoot! Shoot! For God’s sake…shoot! Take them out – shoot!”

He doesn’t. He’s a good guy, and he doesn’t kill innocent people….even if it means New York may go up in a nuclear flame – because, somehow, there is going to be another way to stop this guy. It may be risky, it may be really, really hard – but killing the little girl makes you a bad guy, no matter how many other people you save.

…and there is. Clooney and Kidman figure it out – it’s harder – he has to run through half of New York chasing the guy – they start evacuating all those that they can – he gets shot at, he has a chance to shoot the guy, but a bunch of nuns get in the way, so he holds his fire – he shoots the bad guy, and then, has to figure out how to disarm a nuke – and is willing to die trying. He’s a good guy, too, in the end.

Sometimes life really does face you with a lesser of evils kind of choice, and you have to have the courage to make that choice. Unless, of course, you care only for yourself, in which case, as I mentioned before, you cannot criticize the soldiers who left but did not stop a massacre.

The lesser of the evils is that the good guy doesn’t kill innocent people – and sometimes that means, sadly, the evil man gets away and continues to do more harm.

He is evil because he’s the one killing innocent people. Because you are the good guy you have try very much harder next time, probably with very great risk to you. But you’ve already made that choice, willingly, because that is what hero’s and good guys do.

That, sir, is the lesser of the two evils.

If you get this backwards, you’ve merely replaced the evil man with yourself.

I will answer this later when I have time. For now I will say the next time I am living in your movie, I can be the good guy you refer to. Until then we have to deal with the real world. What you are talking about here is craziness. Sometimes the bad guy will get away? Every time the bad guy will get away. Those willing to do evil will beat those willing to only play by your rules 100% of the time. The little girl in the movie didn’t die. But because it was a movie there is always another way to win. In real life the bomb goes off and millions of innocent people die. And you are OK with that because the “bad guy” did it instead of the “good guy” killing the little girl. Talk about living in an ideal world. It’s called OZ. And in your world we can simply follow the yellow brick road and click our heels together. Everything will be OK then.

Today, we have Travolta challenging the theory with sexy Halley Berry as an accomplice – that killing a few innocent people is justified saving thousands.

The moral confusion of today is represented in some movies – if you want to learn philosophy, watch movies 😉

In contrast to Travolta, we have the “Dark Knight” – Batman, a real aggressive vigilante, unable to morally kill a clear and dangerous mad man out in the open – and because of that, loses the love of his life, and his best friend and threatens to doom the entire city.

But, at the end of the movie, still saves the life of pure evil (who killed the woman he loved – and destroyed his friend) – because, unjustified killing, even of the pure evil, is still wrong.

Because he knows the people will not understand this incredible conflict of the soul between good and evil; and witnessed how his friend has turned from good to evil due to pain; is willing to submit to greater pain and horror for himself to save everyone else from evil –

The end of the movie – the real hero is being hunted – dead or alive. The small hero who gave up his faith and turned evil – is honored. The real evil – lives in jail.

Yep, that is the real world, USWep.

In symbolism, in allegory, in story.

But that is what hero’s do. They don’t do what they do for medals, headlines, or prize. They do it, because if they don’t, who will? If they don’t, evil wins. If they DO, they may lose…. and they do it anyway.

What you are talking about here is craziness. Sometimes the bad guy will get away? Every time the bad guy will get away. Those willing to do evil will beat those willing to only play by your rules 100% of the time.

If your claim was true, civilization could not exist.

It is so easy to destroy – so difficult to build.

Look around – do you see civilization – do you see cities?

Therefore, evil does not win – even with the enormous advantage of evil action.

Thus, the ‘good guys’ using evil tactics destroys the good guys. As we see, right now and today, society begins to crumble.

Moral compasses swing crazy. Torture is ok if ‘we’ use it, but not ok if ‘they’ use it. Then we recoil in horror when we see ‘our guys’ literally beheaded on TV. And even more bizarrely, people are shocked that ‘their guys’ suffer this. Gee…ever wonder if the actions of our torture – and the law of nature’s ‘mutuality of action’ – doesn’t play a part? No, not at all, right? — (sigh)

Being the good guys means you take the hard, but right road. Innocent people trust you not to kill them. You die first in place of children – not kill children.

The little girl in the movie didn’t die. But because it was a movie there is always another way to win. In real life the bomb goes off and millions of innocent people die.

Yep, I’m ok with that. It is VERY SAD – as sad when a tidal wave killed tens of thousands of innocent people too.

But think this way – slaughtering 10,000 people so to save 100,000 people from that tidal wave – would that be an act of good?

I know where your coming from, USWep.

You’re doing arithmetic.

1 is greater than 10.

10 is greater than 100.

100 is greater than 10,000 and so on.

Therefore saving 10,000 over 1 is better….

But wait…think….

Who has the right to determine who lives or dies? You? Why? You smarter? Greater? Better? How do you get that job? What are your qualifications? Are you God?

If you claim this, how? By what right do you claim to chose for another innocent human to live or die? Why this one, and not that one? Luck?

You can’t – not for anyone one.

If you can’t for one – you most certainly can’t for more than one.

The classic paradox – kill one to save a million.

But killing the one innocent dooms all of the million – because to do that, you’ve assumed GOD. And then, no one is safe at all….

YOU determine who lives and who dies?

What right do you have to claim that?

And if you seize such claim, then why do you condemn any one else who seized that claim, too?

Because that is what the evil guy did – claim he has the right to chose who lives or dies.

So, congratulations – you’re exactly in the same square place as the very one you are trying to stop – he and you, equally, claim the right to decide life and death for innocent people.

The girl dies either way. I only chose to make sure she was the only one. As I said, you cannot have it both ways. If you kill the girl, you are evil. But your previous arguments say if you stand by and do nothing, you are evil. Therefore, if you stand by and let an even greater evil be perpetrated, you are evil. There is no choice that can be made in this situation that you would think is good. You make the best choice you can make under the circumstances. It isn’t about being evil. It isn’t about thinking you are god. It is about making the choice to kill one or kill millions.

And movies are a great window into the soul of society, I agree. But in movies there is always another way. Another avenue for victory. And that is where the movie world and the real world separate.

Again though, it is the assumption that my thinking is evil that I wish you wouldn’t make. You again turn my thoughts into a characterization of me as evil, unwilling to care, or of low moral character. I am none of those things. But perhaps I am speaking to a wall. You will continue to do so because it serves your argument?

Don’t try to twist it into something evil. That logic has already failed you and convinces no one but yourself. The girl dies anyway within minutes because the bomb goes off. You know that was what was meant, so stop twisting it. If you can’t make your point without twisting the words to mean something that you know they don’t mean, then the argument is weak to begin with.

The point is not that I get to decide who dies and when like god and you know it. The point is that at that moment I have a choice to make. I can kill one little girl and stop the massacre or I can choose to be good and let millions die. Either way I am evil because people die and I had the chance to make a choice. My way, one innocent girl dies. Your way, a million innocent people die.

And it isn’t lazy. There is no other way. You love to say that there are infinite solutions and there is always another way. Unfortunately that is wishful thinking at its best. A finger on the button to blow up the bomb doesn’t have many possible solutions. Again with the characterization of evil….. my choice is lazy. I can’t be bothered to think of another solution. With you it is always a thing where someone is making a choice to be evil or is too self centered to be moral. You are capable of doing a phenomenal job of twisting words and throwing out your version of people’s mindsets, rather than giving anyone the benefit of the doubt you receive. Again I haven’t attacked your character once, only your statements. But it this is the only way you know to make a point, by all means continue. But you must see that no one reading is going to not see right through what you do. You weaken your position with these tactics.

I know you are just so much smarter than the rest of us so why don’t you provide us with some of the other possibilities. Man has finger on button. When he pushes it, millions die. you have him in sights and have 30 seconds before he pushes it. Girl is in the way. She won’t be moving during the 30 seconds. He is a zealot, like yourself, and won’t be convinced that not pushing the button is a choice. So what is your other way? You should be able to provide at least 5 or ten solutions here. After all, there are “infinite solutions” to this dilemma. Please provide us with some insightful courses of action in which you can save the day.

I need more time to type a decent response, but BF, you seem to have slipped into a total fantasy land here. And you seem to be diametrically opposed to your own concepts of how things work with operations of people and the market. And you seem to be applying arguments relating to capital punishment to a situation that does not apply. Even prison is simply punishment, your logic allows no place for that either. I am not so much talking about punishment, I am talking about removing an evil person from society so that they are unable to work evil again, and doing so forcefully and harshly as a deterrent to others who would be evil. You are following the rediculous logic of those who think we actually created Al Z. You are saying we have to go back in time to fix the issue, which is not possible. And you are saying that evil would not exist without government. As if the institution is what causes evil, not the person or choices. I have heard many argue that the concept of property is the basis of evil. That theft would not exist if there was no actual ownership. I don’t think that makes sense, as a supporter of the market, I don’t think you do either. The human condition includes evil and doers of evil and violence. Combatting it requires violence too, which you have stated is fine, you just seem to have an odd definition of defense.

I am on borrowed time on a borrowed computer, I shall return when I can.

USWeapon Says:
Don’t try to twist it into something evil. That logic has already failed you and convinces no one but yourself. The girl dies anyway within minutes because the bomb goes off. You know that was what was meant, so stop twisting it. If you can’t make your point without twisting the words to mean something that you know they don’t mean, then the argument is weak to begin with.

What twisting?

You have about a dozen outstanding questions, USWep.

If you killed 10,000 to save 100,000 people from a tidal wave – is that a good thing to do?
If among the 10,000 you’d have to kill was your wife and child, would you do it?

Killing a healthy child could save up to 8 people lives from organ harvesting. The greater good, 8 is more than 1, therefore this ok to do. Why or why not?

…..

Maybe the bomb goes off – and the girl dies.

The most important thing is that the girl did not die from your hand. People die – everyone of us one day will die.

But as you said, more or less, “you die anyway, therefore I have a right to kill you”….

But You do not have the right to make the decision of death for another person – even if it means they die anyway!

You should be able to see that if you justify this, euthanasia is justified, ‘mercy’ killing of the retarded, organ harvesting, etc. is all justified – because you claim you have the right to decide death.

If you can justify killing one innocent person, I can justify killing 6 billion persons, using your justifications.

I go back to Hollywood – think of all the movies where the scene;

Our hero is standing over the bad guy. The hero knows the bad guy is going to get out of jail, and kill again. The bad guy killed the hero’s love of his life. Hero is holding the gun over the defenseless bad guy. His trigger finger begins to tighten…. and the hero’s friend says… what, USWep? What does he say?

“Don’t do it, because if you do, you’ll be no different from him”.

What difference are they always talking about, USWep? I know you know…

The point is not that I get to decide who dies and when like god and you know it.

Most absolutely, that is the point.

You are deciding – and you’ve said you are. You are making a choice of death for someone else – and justifying it.

The evil guy is trying to make the choice of death for the millions of others – not you or the little girl.

If you can decide death for someone else, some else can decide death for you. The evil guys fits this rule – he believes he has a right to chose death for someone else, and therefore granted you the right to decide his death. You have the right to take him (but only him) out.

But the little girl did not. She is has not crossed anyone’s rights – she has not threatened evil or death on anyone. For you to kill her, would make you evil – and believe me, if we were two snipers in that movie, and you’re ready to take that shot through the little girl – I’d be aiming at you, ready to take the shot to stop you.

The point is that at that moment I have a choice to make. I can kill one little girlnd stop the massacre or I can choose to be good and let millions die. Either way I am evil because people die and I had the chance to make a choice. My way, one innocent girl dies. Your way, a million innocent people die.

Millions of have people died already. Thousands die everyday – but no innocent one dies because of my hand.

There is nothing I can do to stop people from dying.

There is everything I can do to stop people dying because I purposely killed them – this is in my rightful power – I just don’t kill them!

As I pointed out – hundreds of thousands die from tidal wave, earthquakes, etc. So, by your logic, if there is a hope – no matter how small – that a few human sacrifices might mitigate this loss – you’re willing to try that? This is EXACTLY what savages believed – the killing of innocent people may – MAY – save the people.

Just in this case, you’re a bit more sophisticated – but no less savage.

And it isn’t lazy. There is no other way.

There is ALWAYS another way – you’re simply unwilling to try again.

You love to say that there are infinite solutions and there is always another way. Unfortunately that is wishful thinking at its best.

It is a fact of the universe. (PS: There is a mathematical proof of this).

A finger on the button to blow up the bomb doesn’t have many possible solutions.

Sure there is – infinite in fact. Many solutions aren’t very good – many are. The thing you have to deal with, is all of these solutions do not come with a ‘rating’; sorry, no PG or R ratings…. You have to figure it out. That is why God gave you a brain.

You can always choose to kill innocent people – that’s never been very hard. Try solving difficult problems without having to kill innocent people.

As I’ve asked – if it meant that you have to kill your wife – would you do it? And if you won’t, you’d be a hypocrite. Sadly, if you did, you’re still evil (but not a hypocrite).

The only rightful answer is; not to kill innocent people. Period.

Again with the characterization of evil….. my choice is lazy. I can’t be bothered to think of another solution.

Exactly. You’ve given up. Whether it is lazy, or inability, or emotional collapse – it doesn’t matter, I truly have no interest in the excuse, pick anyone you want – you simply gave up finding the right way.

With you it is always a thing where someone is making a choice to be evil or is too self centered to be moral.

Evil is always, always, always a choice. You cannot be evil via ignorance.

You know there is a choice – to kill or not. You’ve decided based on some justification.

It is YOUR CHOICE.

. When he pushes it, millions die. you have him in sights and have 30 seconds before he pushes it. Girl is in the way. She won’t be moving during the 30 seconds. He is a zealot, like yourself, and won’t be convinced that not pushing the button is a choice. So what is your other way? You should be able to provide at least 5 or ten solutions here. After all, there are “infinite solutions” to this dilemma. Please provide us with some insightful courses of action in which you can save the day.

.

So, yes, there are a lot of choices. To list them would take the rest of time. Some better, some worse.

But I can tell you about the ones I wouldn’t do – kill innocent people. That’s off the table.

I, me, myself, my soul and body, would not kill anyone innocent – even if they all ended up dying. An evil man would be the one that killed them.

Even if it means that I and millions of others die with her. That’s what evil people do – kill innocent people.

I’m not evil.

. Jon Smith Says: . And you seem to be applying arguments relating to capital punishment to a situation that does not apply. Even prison is simply punishment, your logic allows no place for that either.

.

Correct.

You do not have the right to punish.

You can only use violence to defend against an initiation of violence. Once that initial violence is gone, you do not have a right to continue your violence.

Punishment is the continuation of violence.

Punishment says you need revenge.

As I said, if you’d care to notice – that my suggestions were merely a first blush, and not meant to be definitive. My point was two fold: there are an infinite number of solutions – and if a solution ends up crossing human rights, throw it away.

So throw that one away – it won’t hurt my feelings. Then go figure out another one – there’s an infinite number more left to go.

I am talking about removing an evil person from society so that they are unable to work evil again, and doing so forcefully and harshly as a deterrent to others who would be evil.

First off, factually, deterrent has no value. If deterrent worked right now, no one would steal or kill – and people steal and kill all the time. Deterrent is truly illusionary at best. So let’s admit it, and forget it about it because it is worthless. (Let alone it is immoral – to torture someone in excess so to scare off others – how sickeningly inhumane!)

Removing people from doing harm – we agree, that is necessary – but it still must not contradict human rights and freedom or you’ve simply replaced his evil with yours. Because, remember, he is evil because he crossed yours of someone else’s rights somehow. You crossing his rights would now make you evil!

There are a great many ways to protect society while not crossing his human rights. We can dialogue this on your blog as another topic, if you want.

You are following the ridiculous logic of those who think we actually created Al Z.

Let’s see – he wasn’t there before the Americans invaded.
He was there after the Americans invaded.

Pretty straight forward, Jon.

You are saying we have to go back in time to fix the issue, which is not possible.

First, ignoring the reasons will ensure that it will never go away.
Understand why the mistakes were made is the first step to fixing the mistake.
Willful blindness to the past will ensure that the problems of the past will only get worse.

And you are saying that evil would not exist without government.

(sigh) Reading and understanding seems to be a lost art.

I never said evil would not exist without government.

I have said government is evil.

I also said that it is probably the greatest evil on the earth today.

I have said that government and civilization are a contradiction – and therefore are locked in a battle for survival. Only one will win.

BUT – There are plenty of evil people in the world and without government, there still will be plenty of evil people in the world. It just won’t be concentrated and centralized and so well organized as it is with government. Evil will never go away, but if it is dispersed, disorganized and confused, it is far easier to deal with.

As if the institution is what causes evil, not the person or choices.

Yes.

Individually, USWep would never consider blowing up a house with a kid in it, just to kill a few vicious Mafia bosses.

But when evil becomes institutionalized – it is very easy to act in a way that one would not do as an individual. It is because we see the institution as granting the right – the institution is seen as ‘bigger’ then the parts made of people – and drives people to commit unspeakable horror on its behalf. Heck, a study was done last week where people tortured other people, just because a person they thought was in authority told them to. Heck, how do you think they could burn down the Branch Davidian with all those kids – People do not think, and naturally submit to authority. It’s instinct.

I have said the people always have choice – did you miss that post too?? That is exactly the most important thing – because it is individual and can overcome institutionalized violence. But it requires the most important part of humanity – the power of thinking – to do so. Most people really don’t like to do too that much.

I have heard many argue that the concept of property is the basis of evil. That theft would not exist if there was no actual ownership. I don’t think that makes sense, as a supporter of the market, I don’t think you do either.

I really don’t know what your talking about – I’ve not said anything regarding property and ownership (both of which are required to exercise freedom – but that’s another topic)

The human condition includes evil and doers of evil and violence. Combating it requires violence too, which you have stated is fine, you just seem to have an odd definition of defense.

I say you can defend yourself if you’re attacked – and this is odd to you.

Hmmm…. I can only then surmise that you think you should be able to attack without being under attack…

I have been reading this blog for a couple of months now and have made two comments so far. Both have gotten deleted. I understand your reasons usw so i will keep this one clear of language that you find offensive. I have to address blackflag2012, who is about as full of manure as anyone i have read on here.

let’s be clear, i am going to come right out and say that you are a liar blackflag2012. You claim in a post a while ago to have an IQ of around 200 or so. I do not remember the actual words you used but that was the claim. Bullshit (better usw? u have used this one before!). I would bet that both jonsmith and usw have higher IQs than you have. Probly kentmcman too. I am guessing your IQ is around 140-150 with 160 being genius. That makes you smart, but no nearly as smart as you claim and definitely not nearly as smart as you think you are. Do you really think that you could claim an IQ like that and not get called on it. i am sure you will have a smarmy answer about this but whatever it is, just know that nobody who reads any of this stuff believes that number for even one second. you did not sit with anyone counting millions in receipts for that month from your company. Bullshit. You probably have a job where you are middle manager at best and constantly tell all your friends that everyone above you is not nearly as smart as you and you cannot get promoted because you won’t play the politics game. it is against your principles.

you may have actually joined the air force at 17. but you did not do it to fly planes. pilots in the air force come from the air force academy, rotc programs in college, or officer candidate school. you did not go to the air force academy because you completed “university” at 16 (another bullshit claim) and you cannot do that there. you also cannot participate in rotc before the age of 17 so you didn’t do that at university either. and ocs is not an option directly upon entering the air force. so you are definitly full of crap about that whole story. and we all know you did not save 13 people in a training operation that went horribly wrong. as a new air force entrant, you would not have been in a position to lead anyone without supervision at 18, no matter how smart you claim to be. the military does not work that way. so unless your supervisors or instructors were killed in that training operation, you wouldn’t be the one making any decisions. if they were killed then i guess you could provide us with details since it would be able to be verified. top secret right? you were not a military attache to the embassy at 19 either. military attaches are military experts in their fields. what exactly were you an expert at when you had only been in the air force for a year or two. nothing. and for the extra added push to this one, military attaches are almost always pulled from the other three services, not the air force. i am surprised that usw did not call you on this one himself. after all, usw you would know about this certain part of the government, would you not?

your arguments in these forums are stupid. they don’t make any sense and usw is correct when he says that you simply talk in circles and contradict yourself and twist the thing that others say in a way to make it sound like you are right. you simply cannot win the argument in any other way than to try and confuse everyone with your bizarre stories and insane logic. After reading them for a couple months, i could not take them any more. so now i am writing on here again (and hoping that usw does not delete me again) at midnight on christmas to tell you that you are full of crap. and the more you talk the more full of crap you show yourself to be.

For you usw, i hope that i have kept this clean enough to allow this one to stay up. I know who you are. You asked how i found the site in your email. a friend of a friend sent me the link and told me it was you. We have met a long time ago. about ten years. i have a copy of the book that you are in, and i am sure you know which one when i say it was the first edition with your name in it before the recall. I have also read some of the other stuff you wrote in the past for the newspapers. When i met you, you were working in washington dc. Please keep writing, I know of about 50 people out here who are reading every day.Thanks for the site and I will send you an email with some topics I would like to see you talk about soon.

I have to address blackflag2012, who is about as full of manure as anyone i have read on here.

Merry Christmas to you too, Michael.

. I am guessing your IQ is around 140-150 with 160 being genius

Well, actually, 140 is assigned “genius”, but whose counting…

you did not sit with anyone counting millions in receipts for that month from your company. Bullshit.

(Shrug) We did. But of course you making assumptions – a fallacy – but that sounds like your M.O.

you may have actually joined the air force at 17. but you did not do it to fly planes. pilots in the air force come from the air force academy, rotc programs in college, or officer candidate school. you did not go to the air force academy because you completed “university” at 16 (another bullshit claim) and you cannot do that there.

Again, you trip on the fallacy of assumptions. But you’re having fun, so go for it!

you would not have been in a position to lead anyone without supervision at 18, no matter how smart you claim to be. the military does not work that way.

Still tripping on assumption fallacies’ you guess one right. I wasn’t in a position of supervision – that is why it’s called a training exercise – If I had been, we’d not have gotten in deadly trouble. But I didn’t say I was in that role, did I? I was merely the one (and only one) who disobeyed an order I knew to be wrong, stupid and potentially really bad, and ended up the only one left to save them – and had a horrible decision to make. I could, for sure, save myself – but they’d all die. I could, maybe save ‘group A’, if they survived long enough for me to get to them, but ‘group B’ would be doomed (I was with group B) – and it would be nearly impossible to save the rest of ‘group B’ no matter what I did – and trying would cost, for sure, the lives of ‘group A’ and probably my life, too. And there was a wild, remote chance to save them all – we’d all live (maybe) or we’d all die (for sure, if I failed). I failed – but got lucky at the same time.

It cost me a couple of months of recovery – I had a badly injured leg (that still today, I have no feeling in the upper part of my thigh), and had severe pneumonia. It was after this that I had to get another follow-up medical on my leg and lungs that they found my heart anomaly.

But you weren’t there …. so this really isn’t important.

so unless your supervisors or instructors were killed in that training operation, you wouldn’t be the one making any decisions

Not killed, but incapacitated by the consequence of their decision.

if they were killed then i guess you could provide us with details since it would be able to be verified. top secret right?

No, but fortunately since everyone survived it didn’t make the news. If I failed or been unlucy, you’d have known about it.

you were not a military attache to the embassy at 19 either. military attaches are military experts in their fields.

Yes, they are.

what exactly were you an expert at when you had only been in the air force for a year or two. nothing. and for the extra added push to this one, military attaches are almost always pulled from the other three services, not the air force.

I guess it depends on the job, right?

. After reading them for a couple months, i could not take them any more. so now i am writing on here again

.

Thanks for taking the time to try to read. But I would have enjoyed hearing your thoughts on the topic – if you have an argument, or debate – I’d like to hear it.

I learned a while ago that it does no good to discuss this issue with people who are in, or have been in, the military and who still have a mostly positive view of it. My blog (and my previous comments on this blog) contains all I have to say on the issue.

“Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.” ~ Matthew 2:16

Christian apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, and its wars are not known for being the most consistent group of religious people. They are, in fact, some of the most inconsistent, hypocritical, duplicitous, two-faced people – religious or irreligious – that one will encounter when it comes to people who defend the state’s military adventures.
…

Ignorance greatly abounds, of course. But much of this is willful ignorance. It is one thing to be ignorant, but it is stupid to make a career out of it. Who else of all people should be opposed to war, militarism, nationalism, and imperialism than Christians who claim to believe the Bible, obey its precepts, and worship the Prince of Peace? Yet, it is conservative, evangelical, and fundamentalist Christians who continue to be among the biggest defenders of Bush’s war in Iraq, the U.S. military, and American foreign policy.

….

” and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men” (Matthew 2:16).”

Herod did nothing of the kind.

No, I am not a Bible critic who maintains that the “massacre of the innocents” never happened or dismisses it as more hagiography than history.

Herod did nothing of the kind – but his henchmen did.

Not only could Herod have not possibly killed all of these children himself; the leaders of the state always rely on their nationalistic and patriotic subjects to do their dirty work.

The first martyrs for Christ were put to death before he was. They were killed by order of the state.

But just like Bush and Cheney have not themselves actually killed anyone in Iraq, Herod is likewise not guilty of actually killing any of these young children. Yet, many of the same Christians who maintain that Herod has blood on his hands go out of their way to absolve Bush and Cheney of their war crimes.

Oh, the inconsistency of Christian warmongers! Oh, the inconsistency of Christian apologists for the state and its wars!

Christian, are you one of Herod’s henchmen? Would you commit infanticide if the government told you to do so? Then why did you vote for a man whose motto was “Country First”? Why do you incessantly recite your “obey the powers that be” (Romans 13:1) mantra? Why do you make excuses for the genocide that the United States has unleashed in Iraq? Why do you dismiss bombed Afghan wedding parties as collateral damage? Why do you defend an imperialistic and interventionist U.S. foreign policy? Why do you encourage us to pray for the troops as they mete out death and destruction to Iraqis in a war that has nothing to do with defense of the country? Why do you continue to support profligate spending, massive increase in government, mockery of the Constitution, destruction of civil liberties, and open-ended wars? Why do you applaud U.S. soldiers as heroes and defenders of our freedoms when they are neither?

How many Afghan and Iraqi babies and children have been killed by the U.S. military? Sadly, many Christians not only don’t know, they don’t even care.

Wow, MichaelD you certainly do speak your mind. This is the first I have been able to get on and view this and comment. I don’t see the need to question BF’s history or his claims for a simple reason, they are irrelevant to the conversation. I choose to engage him on the facts of his arguments. It is not a matter of whether he is honest about them or not. It is simply that his history plays no part in the discussion except to help me understand why or how he feels the way that he does. And in that light, it wouldn’t matter if he was making every bit of it up, because it does its intended job of helping establish where his mindset is.

And for the record, I have no reason to believe that he would make these stories up. I cannot individually verify any of them even if I had the inclination to. But again, I don’t see where that would have anything to do with debating the issues based on the merit of the issues. If his stories were all lies, would that change the substance of his arguments around the principles? I don’t think so, and the issue is therefore irrelevant.

But I thank you for reading and for passing the link on to your friends. And I thank you for taking the time to comment on the discussion and for keeping it a little more civilized this time. There are hundreds of people reading every day who are not taking the time to respond at all. I hope you will continue to do so. Do you have any thoughts you would like to add around the military being evil or not evil?

The complaint, filed Tuesday in The Hague, follows a ruling by Italy’s top criminal court ordering Berlin to pay euro 1 million (US$1.4 million) in damages to nine relatives of victims of a June 1944 massacre in the Tuscan town of Civitella.

In the atrocity, German soldiers killed more than 200 civilians to avenge a deadly attack by partisans.

In its filing with the World Court, Germany argued that as a sovereign state it has immunity in Italian courts, and that any decision rendered in the Italian judiciary is unenforceable.

After assuring the overmatched guards they would not be killed — if they agreed never to work there again — the militants shouted “God is great” through bullhorns. They then grabbed jerrycans and made several trips to a nearby gas station for fuel, which they dumped on the cargo trucks and Humvees before setting them ablaze.

We do this to our allies – and justify it.

A spokesman said Zardari condemned Wednesday’s pre-dawn assault in the South Waziristan tribal region. It killed at least 15 people, officials say, and was the first known foreign ground assault in Pakistan…

Army and intelligence officials as well as residents said 15 people died, while the provincial governor said 20 civilians, including women and children, were killed.

“Ten military advisers are attached to the Sonsonate armed forces… The episode contains all the unchanging elements of the Salvadoran tragedy- uncontrolled military violence against civilians, the apparent ability of the wealthy to procure official violence…and the presence of United States military advisers, working with the Salvadoran military responsible for these monstrous practices… after 30,000 unpunished murders by security and military forces and over 10,000 “disappearances” of civilians in custody, the root causes of the killings remain in place, and the killing goes on.”– Two Americans who visited El Salvador in 1983 for the New York City Bar Association described for the New York Times a massacre of eighteen peasants by local troops in Sonsonate province

Dude what is with post #39 above? Now you are claiming that our enemies are good people and we are bad people? I get that you think the military is bad. But comparisons like this are, for lack of a better word, silly and stupid. There are American soldiers that every day do the right thing. And you just choose to pick a bad thing in the paper and say this is how the American military acts. And then you likewise go and find a rare story of where terrorists don’t kill someone and present that as your position of how our enemies act? So can I just copy a story into here about a US military soldier doing something good and you will accept them as good?

Our enemies also cut off innocent civilians heads, torture them, blow up markets full of children and women. And you chose this lone story as the symbol of how our enemies act? Is this your way of saying the enemy is better morally than we are? If you want to say government is bad and military is bad, that is one thing, but to claim that our military is bad and the enemies are not is beyond ridiculous.

I mean seriously dude. You are bordering on ludicrousness at this point. I could continue writing but at this point I simply am going to have to wait for you to clarify your position on this one.

Again the single example for the US military is set as the defining tone. You are correct that if given the chance to do so they will surrender in droves if they won’t be hurt. Hence why in the first gulf war they did exactly that:over 200,000 surrendered to the US military in droves without fighting. I guess the US military can be just as smart as this random one time occurrence that you found from the enemy.

Also a nice twist on the motivations of the enemy to make them somehow mirror your motivations. They are not waging a war to de-legitimize government and authority. Perhaps you missed the post on Al Qaeda’s history. Go back and re-read. They are waging a war in which the end goal is exactly the opposite of what you claim, a strict theocracy in which Islam is the guiding government and the authority.

And the “occupiers” argument is a left wing concoction that I am surprised to see you use. You love to point out fallacy in argument, even though you often use the word incorrectly. We are not occupiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. We would love to be able to leave as fast as possible. Save the liberal rhetoric for people who aren’t smart enough to know better.

The article is a nice history lesson on Spain and their mistakes. However, the author’s only link to United States military in Iraq is nothing more than saying just that. No facts that show a parallel. No examples that show a similarity. Just a single sentence stating that the US in Iraq is just like Spain 500 years ago and that we will see it be our downfall. The article is a perfect argument, as there are no facts to dispute, just a history lesson on Spain and a quick blurb on the Us being the same. Articles like this are meant to do exactly what they did to you, make a believer out of someone who is already a believer. You have to want to believe that we are the same, because there is nothing there to make anyone believe it who didn’t do so before they clicked on the article.

First, and most important, it begins to infer the right of the military to engage in actions upon civilian life.

The military is the epitome agency of violence and destruction – this is their training – it is the very last thing you want to have involved in civilian problems.

We see the horrible problems the military caused during Katrina as an example – the default solution of the military is to shoot and ask questions later – and is simply unnecessary in civilian law and order.

The more the military is seen as a ‘solution’, the more the military ingrains itself into society – and that is exactly the wrong direction for society – we want less violence, not more, as part of society.

The Posse Comitatus Act was designed for this very reason – and now, like all acts to prevent government tyranny, is mere a interesting piece of paper worth only to starting a camp fire.

Second, and very scary, is the slow, insidious, actions of the government using the military inside the US. There is now 1 (and soon, 2) brigades of US combat troops designated for ‘internal security operations’.

Slowly, a military junta is being inserted into the US – and much of it comes from the military ‘helping’ us poor, incapable, stupid, weak civilians.

The threat of a standing army – as foretold by the founders – is slowly and steadily coming true.

BF,
I would love to discuss the methods of removal of evil forma society on my blog, and will do so as soon as I have time, I am still in a position where my internet access is limited, as I do not yet have it at my new house.

I would submit, in reference to the discussion here, that we have cities and growth and creation in part due to those who have fought against evil and destroyed it. Destruction is, in fact, so easy that it would have indeed been accomlished had many not fought to prevent it. Considering the organized evil that has been bent on destruction, I would further submit that an equally organized force was required to combat it.

True, power is a temptation, and I support the concept of distribution of power. That is the key reasoning for the free market versus a planned economy. Not only is the decision making and responsibility distributed and thus more brain power is used, but also the control of finances is not too restricted.

The same can apply to authority and physical might, but I think there remains a need for enough consolidation to have the strength to combat those who would organize for evil. It is sort of like the idea of a business versus each person working for themselves. There are certain things that could not be accomplished by independent effort. Politically, a government is the equivalent of a large business in the market. They are needed for certain things, but they must still be set up in a manner that keeps them from being exclusive holders of power, and that keeps them as free from corruption as possible. I do not think the solution is to remove businesses from the market, the solution is to organize them differently. Likewise with government and militaries

Well said Jon. I tend to agree with your stance here. I hold no illusion (regardless of BF’s thoughts on my stance, lol) that the government in its current form is all good. There is a lot of bad there. But government in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. I won’t go far enough to start the entire circle spinning again between BF and myself. But I do think there are certain functions that the government can do well. The same goes for business. Where we run into problems are when those two entities get too drunk at a bar and have a good night. Business and government should not be hooking up. Keep government’s hand out of the free market and business’s hands out of the government cookie jar and we will have take a giant step in the right direction.